Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moss said:
Regarding things not in the public: I may have missed it, but has anything come forth as evidence of the Waterbury "Rudy as police informant" theory or of Rudy's alleged other crimes displaying a certain MO?
Click to expand...

The last I've seen about it was in late APR:

Rudy worked for the Perugian justice authorities. He murdered Meredith Kercher while under their employ and protection.

(Source: http://www.sciencespheres.com/2010/04/inevitable-unexpected-and-theory-of.html )

Waterbury hasn't posted anything since then on his blog so he's probably busy with his vertical gardening projects or perhaps lazily dreaming up excuses for making a wild-eyed assertion without a scrap of evidence.

Bruce still has the whole article embarrassingly featured at his site--the same site he said contains no false information:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury-7.html

Chris has allowed comments to remain in his blog about the case since late April without any opinion by the publisher himself:

We are both equally troubled by the “Guede as police informant” theory.

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/things-said-and-left-unsaid-barbie.html

Perugia-Shock has allowed comments to remain too:

What’s really the reason behind the deliberately conviction of two obvious innocent: business as usual, face-saving, Guede a police informant,…?

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/05/rudi-guedes-last-appeal.html

That one is in the style of the JAQ technique favoured on conspiracy theory forums.

Tacitly or openly, two of the chief propagandists for the FOA have allowed Waterbury's claims to fester. Charlie's FOA site still links to Waterbury, too. These three JREF posters should take the effort to divorce themselves from such unsupportable allegations by cleaning Waterbury from their links. This will prevent those who rely upon their advocacy sites for their information from concluding that they have no case.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
You will probably have to wait until the fall to read about this. It will come out eventually. I am speaking of the crimes committed by Guede as well as the information about him being an informant.
Click to expand...

This is laughable. Waterbury lied. The police are not going to wait three years to charge someone with breaking and entering, either.

Show us the evidence or retract your statement.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
You will probably have to wait until the fall to read about this. It will come out eventually. I am speaking of the crimes committed by Guede as well as the information about him being an informant.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info Bruce!
I have been quite curious about the reasons why Mr. Rudy Guede did not spend time in jail,
at least a little bit, on the occasions that the police were called about him. What gives?

I bet that if I had been caught in a school with a knife,
I woulda went straight to jail. You too probably...

I await more information about Mr. Guede's "get", oops, I mean "stay out of jail FREE" card
that he seems to have been privy to!
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
Tacitly or openly, two of the chief propagandists for the FOA have allowed Waterbury's claims to fester. Charlie's FOA site still links to Waterbury, too. These three JREF posters should take the effort to divorce themselves from such unsupportable allegations by cleaning Waterbury from their links. This will prevent those who rely upon their advocacy sites for their information from concluding that they have no case.
Click to expand...


It's just a theory, sti, and that is made plain in each instance. Mark is "lazily dreaming up excuses for making a wild-eyed assertion without a scrap of evidence?" In fact, he has more evidence for his theory than the prosecustion had for theirs.
 
Mary_H said:
It's just a theory, sti, and that is made plain in each instance. Mark is "lazily dreaming up excuses for making a wild-eyed assertion without a scrap of evidence?" In fact, he has more evidence for his theory than the prosecustion had for theirs.
Click to expand...

He has? More than the unsourced article he links to and then speculates on further? Show me.
 
Moss said:
He has? More than the unsourced article he links to and then speculates on further? Show me.
Click to expand...


Three eye-witnesses have claimed Rudy trespassed and/or burglarized their property. Mysteriously, Rudy was not prosecuted for those crimes. The courts have been suspiciously lenient with Rudy following his conviction for murder.

When the theory of a group sex murder was presented to the press, the police had no evidence and no eyewitnesses claiming such a thing had taken place.

Waterbury has developed a theory from facts he has studied. The prosecution developed a theory from their vivid imaginations.
 
stilicho said:
This is laughable. Waterbury lied. The police are not going to wait three years to charge someone with breaking and entering, either.

Show us the evidence or retract your statement.
Click to expand...

I am not at liberty to print it. The information with regard to Guede will eventually come out. I never said the police were going to charge Guede with breaking and entering.

There is evidence to show that Guede was involved in criminal activity and was never charged. If this information is true and Guede wasn't properly detained, then the negligence of the police contributed to Meredith's death.

I am not speaking about Mark Waterbury's theory but you are certainly in no position to say that Mark lied. You don't have the information.
 
stilicho said:
The last I've seen about it was in late APR:

Rudy worked for the Perugian justice authorities. He murdered Meredith Kercher while under their employ and protection.

(Source: http://www.sciencespheres.com/2010/04/inevitable-unexpected-and-theory-of.html )

Waterbury hasn't posted anything since then on his blog so he's probably busy with his vertical gardening projects or perhaps lazily dreaming up excuses for making a wild-eyed assertion without a scrap of evidence.

Bruce still has the whole article embarrassingly featured at his site--the same site he said contains no false information:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury-7.html

Chris has allowed comments to remain in his blog about the case since late April without any opinion by the publisher himself:

We are both equally troubled by the “Guede as police informant” theory.

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/things-said-and-left-unsaid-barbie.html

Perugia-Shock has allowed comments to remain too:

What’s really the reason behind the deliberately conviction of two obvious innocent: business as usual, face-saving, Guede a police informant,…?

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/05/rudi-guedes-last-appeal.html

That one is in the style of the JAQ technique favoured on conspiracy theory forums.

Tacitly or openly, two of the chief propagandists for the FOA have allowed Waterbury's claims to fester. Charlie's FOA site still links to Waterbury, too. These three JREF posters should take the effort to divorce themselves from such unsupportable allegations by cleaning Waterbury from their links. This will prevent those who rely upon their advocacy sites for their information from concluding that they have no case.
Click to expand...


Do you know what the definition of the word theory is? Mark wrote a theory. He stated it was a theory.

You need to get a grip on reality.
 
Well, a theory is a set of statements. If the theory is true so are those statements.

///
 
Last edited:
Mark Waterbury wrote: "While this is just a theory of the crime that I've developed, to me it rings stunningly true. Viewed through this lens many unexplained actions fall perfectly into place. It implies that there has been serious misconduct within the Perugian justice system, not merely quirky behavior or incompetence. For that reason this is a call to arms, a call for investigation by journalists, bloggers, other observers, and more highly placed powers in Italy."

Mark put forth a theory and he asked that it be investigated. I see nothing wrong with this. He is not stating anything as fact. He is asking for answers.

There is no one here that has more information regarding this case than Mark Waterbury. None of you are in any position to discredit him.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I am not at liberty to print it. The information with regard to Guede will eventually come out. I never said the police were going to charge Guede with breaking and entering.
Click to expand...
Okay, hope you don't mind that till this information comes out I will continue to base my opinion on things I know. And that is that Rudy Guede doesn't have prior criminal record, as evidenced by the remarks of the judge who reduced his sentence.

There is evidence to show that Guede was involved in criminal activity and was never charged. If this information is true and Guede wasn't properly detained, then the negligence of the police contributed to Meredith's death.
Click to expand...
No

I am not speaking about Mark Waterbury's theory but you are certainly in no position to say that Mark lied. You don't have the information.
Click to expand...
Based on the information available to us, we can certainly make that claim.
 
Based on the information available to us, we can certainly make that claim.[/QUOTE]

You do not know the information so you have no reason to claim he lied. What did he lie about?
 
Mary_H said:
Three eye-witnesses have claimed Rudy trespassed and/or burglarized their property. Mysteriously, Rudy was not prosecuted for those crimes. The courts have been suspiciously lenient with Rudy following his conviction for murder.

When the theory of a group sex murder was presented to the press, the police had no evidence and no eyewitnesses claiming such a thing had taken place.

Waterbury has developed a theory from facts he has studied. The prosecution developed a theory from their vivid imaginations.
Click to expand...

Waterbury is a liar and has developed his assertions from his own imagination. Produce the evidence now.

Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy, were charged and convicted on the basis of a mountain of evidence, publicly tried, and sentenced to long prison terms. There was no evidence that any of them were informants, in spite of past encounters on the fringes of lawful behaviour by each of the three, but there was plenty of evidence to convict each of them for murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom